Hurting public workers isn't answer

Published 5:32 pm, Monday, March 4, 2013

Red Jahncke's op-ed "Storm provided a poor excuse to defend state workers" (Feb. 23), lays the blame for our state's economic woes at the doorstep of public sector employees. One would trust his conclusions were the product of meticulous research into the compensation and benefit structure of private sector employees versus their public sector counterparts. Sadly, such research is nowhere on display.

Indeed, if Mr. Jahncke had done his homework, he would have found the following: The National Institute on Retirement Security, when education and work experience are considered, found that state and local employees actually earn 11 to 12 percent less than comparable private sector workers, and their compensation is still lower when benefit plans are figured in. In another study, Jeffrey H. Keefe of the Economic Policy Institute discovered that, on average, state and local employees earn $6,061 per year less than their private sector counterparts. Add in health and insurance benefits and the average public sector worker earns about $2,000 less per year than his or her peer in the private sector.

One thing Mr. Jahncke gets right: Our private sector employment picture in Connecticut is weak. As a result of the Great Recession, workers in the private economy have suffered grievously with the loss of jobs, pensions, health benefits, etc. But his preferred "remedy" -- what he euphemistically calls "equitable treatment of public and private workers" (i.e., slashing the pay and benefits of public sector workers to the ever shrinking levels that private sector workers have) -- is worse than the disease.

If Mr. Jahncke believes our "overpaid" state cops and community college professors are living high off the hog, and deserve a haircut, perhaps he should try living off their salaries (in one of the costliest states in the country). Cutting their pay and benefits will not bring back private sector jobs, much less an economic renaissance in Connecticut. It will only result in less purchasing power overall, in an economy already suffering from a lack of demand. Pitting public sector workers and private sector workers against each other will not solve that problem.

The late concert pianist Van Cliburn was an iconic figure in the world of music. His rise to fame coincided with the height of the Cold War in the late 1950's, and his warmth of character and generous nature were enthusiastically embraced by the people of the Soviet Union.

This was a bright spot in an otherwise bleak and tense period of modern history. Cliburn's artistry became an inspiration to generations of American pianists, and he became an ambassador of "classical" music to many people who, before his rise to fame, had little or no exposure to the depths of Chopin, Rachmaninov, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and other masters. Our country has produced many fine pianists and musicians, but Cliburn's legacy is one that our country can be deeply proud of.

It is a sad commentary on current culture to note that the passing of Van Cliburn only warrants a small blurb buried in the pages of most newspapers while the idiotic cohorts of TV and Hollywood "personalities" mange to grab headlines and become major "stories."

Fortunately, Cliburn's recorded legacy will provide deeper meaning and substance and should be honored accordingly.

Will Duchon

Milford

Political prez

To the editor:

The president signed sequestration into law assuming the Republicans would cave and do things his way. That's partisanship at its worst. The president is playing for the next election, in 2014 when the Democrats hope to regain the House and rule supreme in Washington (just like in Hartford). The president's partisanship is causing a lot of collateral damage. But, apparently, for many that's an acceptable cost.